I'm inferring from your statement that the you think that a reasonable timeframe for obsolescence of unmodified binaries is on the order of decades, and I'm not sure I agree with that.

I think it depends on how many of those binaries are still in service which, for the Macintosh, I honestly don't know.

I knew a guy still running a farming app written originally for his Mac Plus in 1994 but did people and those old apps survive Apple's market share doing the big firework in the late 90's? Maybe not. Has Apple been collecting telemetry on application usage for their OS or just guessed at the timeframe?

Someone was still using a Mac Plus in 1994? That doesn't sound quite right.

But going to the bigger point, one of the appealing aspects of OS X is that it generally isn't saddled with the cruft needed to handle decades worth of legacy apps. My life isn't made any worse by the os's failure to support ancient software.

I'm inferring from your statement that the you think that a reasonable timeframe for obsolescence of unmodified binaries is on the order of decades, and I'm not sure I agree with that.

I think it depends on how many of those binaries are still in service which, for the Macintosh, I honestly don't know.

I knew a guy still running a farming app written originally for his Mac Plus in 1994 but did people and those old apps survive Apple's market share doing the big firework in the late 90's? Maybe not. Has Apple been collecting telemetry on application usage for their OS or just guessed at the timeframe?

Someone was still using a Mac Plus in 1994? That doesn't sound quite right.

But going to the bigger point, one of the appealing aspects of OS X is that it generally isn't saddled with the cruft needed to handle decades worth of legacy apps. My life isn't made any worse by the os's failure to support ancient software.

The Mac Plus launched in 1986. It's not unreasonable to expect an eight year old computer and application to still be working.

If it has a 7.8" screen then every on screen element will be 35% smaller than on a 9.7" screen, even in just one dimension it will be 20% smaller. For a touch interface that's a real bodge job. Mind you Apple seem to be doing a lot of that recently.

Do you think elements on 7.8" 1024x768 display will be too small while 7" 1280x800 is OK? I can't understand your math.Seriously, supposed 7.8" 1028x768 display has the same pixel density as non-retinal iPhone. Though it will be inconvenient compared to 10" iPad, it'll be usable. Not worse than Nexus 7, i'm sure.

You're missing the point. The argument for the smaller iPad at 1024x768 is that current applications can be simply re-used at the smaller screen size with no developer attention required.

This is, quite simply, bullshit. As eve mentioned, reducing touch-targets by about a third is not great for user experience. There are already touch targets that are too small at the current 9.7" screen, like the ridiculously tiny 'x' next to notifications in Notification Center. So a smaller screen size will absolutely require developer attention to optimize applications for the new, smaller, screen area. What we've seen on Android tablets is that one-size-fits-all applications just don't work. There's no reason that things will be any better on a smaller iPad.

So far as this product goes, there have been several other 'confirmations' before regarding production of this mythical tiny unicorn. I'll believe it when I see it. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that a smaller iPad is either necessary or useful. I'm also extremely skeptical that Apple would release an iOS device without a Retina-class screen. The whole thing just sounds wrong.

Actually, you can use iPad 1-3 apps in portrait mode, but set to landscape on a 7" iPad, without resizing targets but forcing scrolling. Alternatively, you can super sample iPhone apps; triple the virtual screen and then cut in half to fit. It works fine on the Retina MBP.

So long as most apps work somewhat, the price, features, and size of the iPad will sell itself and developers will fight to make more apps available, especially if it outsells the other iPads.

The alternative is that the original iPad or the iPhone 4 or the iPhone 6 all die on the vine due to screen changes.

Do you think elements on 7.8" 1024x768 display will be too small while 7" 1280x800 is OK? I can't understand your math.

I don't believe there is an optimum size or resolution, I do believe that squashing an application designed for a 9.7" screen onto a 7.8" screen is a lousy way of handling a smaller screen. Android, as it is today, has the tools for handling such situations (whether they are well used is another matter).

Ember wrote:

Layout management on iOS is poor. That's why they introduced 2x high DPI device but never built devices with incrementally bigger screen.But vastly improved layout management API is offered on iOS 6. And I think that's why iPhone 5 has taller screen (if rumors are true).

Auto Layout is an improvement, but it doesn't magically enable old apps to make good use of a smaller screen. It is far easier to scale legacy applications up to use a bigger screen, than to scale them down to a smaller screen.

Really Auto Layout should have been there from day one, and perhaps might have been if Apple had committed to third party application support from the beginning. (If you don't have third party apps you can always fix every one of your own apps for any screen size or resolution).

Maybe Apple can get away with releasing a smaller screen iPad mini, and hope that all the key apps quickly update, or that people put up with having to press significantly smaller buttons (the stylus situation Jobs warned about), but it seems like a very un-Apple like compromise.

Someone was still using a Mac Plus in 1994? That doesn't sound quite right.

But going to the bigger point, one of the appealing aspects of OS X is that it generally isn't saddled with the cruft needed to handle decades worth of legacy apps. My life isn't made any worse by the os's failure to support ancient software.

I always loved this because it's a good example of how the RDF works. Windows is horrible because it's bogged down by legacy support while osx which comes with a program designed to back up data to magnetic reels and another designed for teletype terminals somehow doesn't have legacy cruft.

Actually, you can use iPad 1-3 apps in portrait mode, but set to landscape on a 7" iPad, without resizing targets but forcing scrolling. Alternatively, you can super sample iPhone apps; triple the virtual screen and then cut in half to fit. It works fine on the Retina MBP.

So long as most apps work somewhat, the price, features, and size of the iPad will sell itself and developers will fight to make more apps available, especially if it outsells the other iPads.

Nicely put, but here, at last, is a confession of the obvious. Fragmentation, albeit in smaller amounts, is coming to iOS land. Sooner or later, there will be enough form factors to require *gasp* variable screen sizes, just like everywhere else.

I do think that the 7 inch iPad is coming, and the Chinese market would be an excellent "first stop" for it. Logical, because there is a decent economy there. Logical, because it would be a mistake to let Android get a huge foothold there. Logical, because it isn't yet a full-blown first world economy (presumably, that fraction of the Chinese people are already buying the product).

This is the kind of logic that drives business, not "sacred" principles. If Apple put some principle or other or even developer convenience over a much larger slice of a market of one billion people (in China, but also in India for another billion to presumably follow); well, that just isn't good business. Heck, it doesn't even make any sense for the development community. The market is big enough to justify a little extra testing.

This could easily turn out to be the equivalent of "giving away the low end" (as Frank Cary of IBM famously put it about Detroit).

Give Android these markets and all of Apple's vaunted "supply chain" advantages get cancelled. Just for openers.

Actually, you can use iPad 1-3 apps in portrait mode, but set to landscape on a 7" iPad, without resizing targets but forcing scrolling.

Jobs would have flipped out if an engineer suggested such a thing, and you know it.

OrangeCream wrote:

Alternatively, you can super sample iPhone apps; triple the virtual screen and then cut in half to fit. It works fine on the Retina MBP.

That possibility is a half-decent option, treat the iPad mini as a big iPod touch not a smaller iPad, but I still don't think it's good enough.

OrangeCream wrote:

So long as most apps work somewhat, the price, features, and size of the iPad will sell itself and developers will fight to make more apps available, especially if it outsells the other iPads.

The alternative is that the original iPad or the iPhone 4 or the iPhone 6 all die on the vine due to screen changes.

I wonder if Apple might in very quick order introduce the iPad mini, iPhone 5, and a new iPad with a different size screen. If the 3.5" iPhones and 9.7" iPads disappeared it might force developers to adopt Auto Layout very quickly.

Jobs would have flipped out if an engineer suggested such a thing, and you know it.

Compared to giving away hundreds of millions of profitable device purchases for customers otherwise out of their reach? I think even Jobs would suddenly find his way to give up on a couple of supposed principles that I think are overplayed hereabouts. At the end of the day, despite his other pretensions, he was a businessman first.

The reported landing point of this iPad in China is key and makes sense. It would be a huge market and one which not only would Apple want, but one they don't want to discover they simply gave away to Android or even Windows.

Well, be fair Jade. The Nexus is the first Android tablet to not suck. Surely that should give you pause before you declare it a flop, no?

The question remains why should the Nexus 7 succeed where every tablet has failed before? The answer appears to be because it's not failed yet, the same answer for every failed iPad challenger gave so far.

Like I said, because the Nexus 7 is the first Android tablet to not suck.

Or are there mythical Android tablets out there that were awesome and still flopped?

They all didn't suck before they were launched, then when they didn't sell they sucked. The Amazon Fire is just the latest tablet to see its expectations change after the fact of failure. Even if the Nexus 7 is a great tablet, which it is not, it's not an iPad. A 7-inch iPad at $299 ensures Apple's continued dominance of the market through 2012. Things might change in 2013 as Windows 8 gains traction, but that won't help the Android tablets. As an aside, it also doesn't help when Google makes it a point of pride to sell the Nexus at cost.

This is completely revisionist Jade. Be honest, they all reviewed terribly. Every single one.

Why are you arguing against something that via the internet is public record?

You seem to be forgetting how myopic the tech press is when it comes to consumer products; shiny and new? Then it must be a great product! Also, they oddly review tablets while failing to take into account the quality of the device's ecosystem.

You're missing the point. The argument for the smaller iPad at 1024x768 is that current applications can be simply re-used at the smaller screen size with no developer attention required.

No, it's you who are missing the point. All standard controls on iOS are same size in pixels, meaning any controls on iPad mini is not smaller than those on iPhone. They're usable though not as convenient as classic iPad.iPad has lower pixel density than iPhone because you'll hold 10" tablet farther from your face than your 3.5" phone, not because controls on iPhone is too small to touch with your finger. You'd hold 7.8" tablet a little bit closer to you than 10" one, so I expect iPad mini usable.

Quote:

This is, quite simply, bullshit. As eve mentioned, reducing touch-targets by about a third is not great for user experience. There are already touch targets that are too small at the current 9.7" screen, like the ridiculously tiny 'x' next to notifications in Notification Center.

I never said it would be great. I just said it'll be usable.And no standard controls are too small to touch, even on iPhone. Is the size of of notification bigger (in pixels) on iPhone than on iPad? If so, it'll adapt itself on iPad mini as it does on iPhone.I find some links on web too small and zoom to tap, but I don't remember finding any well designed app having too small element to touch. If you find such apps it's the apps' fault not following Apple's UI guideline. They should be updated.

Quote:

So a smaller screen size will absolutely require developer attention to optimize applications for the new, smaller, screen area. What we've seen on Android tablets is that one-size-fits-all applications just don't work. There's no reason that things will be any better on a smaller iPad.

Developers might put some efforts and time to improve their apps. But I don't think it's a must. Well written apps will be usable on 7.8" iPad.

Quote:

So far as this product goes, there have been several other 'confirmations' before regarding production of this mythical tiny unicorn. I'll believe it when I see it. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that a smaller iPad is either necessary or useful. I'm also extremely skeptical that Apple would release an iOS device without a Retina-class screen. The whole thing just sounds wrong.

I don't think 7.8" iPad is confirmed by any means. I just think it's affordable option. It would be less convenient to manipulate, but the size and weight will be worth the inconvenience too some users. Personally I'll keep my new iPad with retina display rather than smaller lighter one.

Well, be fair Jade. The Nexus is the first Android tablet to not suck. Surely that should give you pause before you declare it a flop, no?

The question remains why should the Nexus 7 succeed where every tablet has failed before? The answer appears to be because it's not failed yet, the same answer for every failed iPad challenger gave so far.

Like I said, because the Nexus 7 is the first Android tablet to not suck.

Or are there mythical Android tablets out there that were awesome and still flopped?

They all didn't suck before they were launched, then when they didn't sell they sucked. The Amazon Fire is just the latest tablet to see its expectations change after the fact of failure. Even if the Nexus 7 is a great tablet, which it is not, it's not an iPad. A 7-inch iPad at $299 ensures Apple's continued dominance of the market through 2012. Things might change in 2013 as Windows 8 gains traction, but that won't help the Android tablets. As an aside, it also doesn't help when Google makes it a point of pride to sell the Nexus at cost.

This is completely revisionist Jade. Be honest, they all reviewed terribly. Every single one.

Why are you arguing against something that via the internet is public record?

You seem to be forgetting how myopic the tech press is when it comes to consumer products; shiny and new? Then it must be a great product! Also, they oddly review tablets while failing to take into account the quality of the device's ecosystem.

Thanks for that. I was about to hunt down the links myself. And really, the tech press is no worse than Battlefront denizens. Or do I have to hunt down links to folks in this thread singing Hosanas to Homeycomb, Icecream Sandwich, the ASUS Transformer, the Kindle Fire, etc.

Well, be fair Jade. The Nexus is the first Android tablet to not suck. Surely that should give you pause before you declare it a flop, no?

The question remains why should the Nexus 7 succeed where every tablet has failed before? The answer appears to be because it's not failed yet, the same answer for every failed iPad challenger gave so far.

Like I said, because the Nexus 7 is the first Android tablet to not suck.

Or are there mythical Android tablets out there that were awesome and still flopped?

They all didn't suck before they were launched, then when they didn't sell they sucked. The Amazon Fire is just the latest tablet to see its expectations change after the fact of failure. Even if the Nexus 7 is a great tablet, which it is not, it's not an iPad. A 7-inch iPad at $299 ensures Apple's continued dominance of the market through 2012. Things might change in 2013 as Windows 8 gains traction, but that won't help the Android tablets. As an aside, it also doesn't help when Google makes it a point of pride to sell the Nexus at cost.

This is completely revisionist Jade. Be honest, they all reviewed terribly. Every single one.

Why are you arguing against something that via the internet is public record?

You seem to be forgetting how myopic the tech press is when it comes to consumer products; shiny and new? Then it must be a great product! Also, they oddly review tablets while failing to take into account the quality of the device's ecosystem.

"But a true laptop replacement isn't about raw power; it's about the productivity that power enables, and Honeycomb just isn't up to the task. The operating system hasn't been optimized for that ridiculous processor or that beautiful display, the app selection remains pitiable at best, and it's just not that intuitive to use. Asus may have produced a brilliant piece of engineering at a price that's competitive with the iPad, but Android hasn't yet matched iOS when it comes to unlocking all that potential."

"The Tab 10.1 is now the thinnest tablet on the market and yet doesn't sacrifice battery life or performance for its trim dimensions. Does that mean it's better than the iPad 2? In some respects, yes. Its camera takes better shots and it's lighter to hold, but Honeycomb's trailing app selection continues, and will continue to, hold back even the most miraculous Honeycomb hardware"

It's a shame "The Verge" didn't exist prior to the new iPad. You would have seen it score 9.2+

They gave the new iPad a score of 9.3 for example. Whichever way you slice it, Android tablets were compared against the iPad and fell short each and every time.

So no, I don't agree that these devices were ever held up as iPad killers by anyone that actually knows something about tablets.

The Nexus seems good enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see it hold it's own against the equivalent 7 inch Apple device should it ever ship.

All I'm saying is, this time it would appear it's not a forgone conclusion that Apple will dominate that segment.

Maybe Apple can get away with releasing a smaller screen iPad mini, and hope that all the key apps quickly update, or that people put up with having to press significantly smaller buttons (the stylus situation Jobs warned about), but it seems like a very un-Apple like compromise.

Welcome to reality.

The world is to big to be confined to a handful of form factors, aspect ratios, and pixel sizes. Apple gets great PR for things like this and the development community (especially the Angry Birds crowd) appreciates it, but the truth is a lot of apps don't really care about this as much as is thought around here.

If your app is backed by services in the web (say), then handing multiple screen sizes and aspect ratios simply isn't that big a deal; never was, never will be. Automatic layout tools and the like were invented for you. You're not really sensitive to animation like some "shoot-em-up" and if you are, it will be in a confined subset. You are running at human speed and all you need is a halfway credible layout, period. A little more, a little less space between various elements; a little image scaling; you're done. You might have to provide a couple different icon or image sizes, eventually, but that's mainly it. This has been true in, say Windows and OS X to name two, for about two or three decades now.

And, as we're developing, a lot of apps are going to be of this class on the services side (to say nothing about apps in the "for pay" class that are like this, too). They, at least, won't care about this.

I mean, how many people who are going on and on about this still watch upscaled DVDs?

Why are reviews relevant at all? How have good reviews helped Windows Phone? For that matter, Macs consistently get great reviews but growth remains slow, though steady. Even if reviews matter, the Nexus 7 will have three months before Windows 8 tablets and the 7-inch iPad launch. That might be enough time to gain a little traction, except the latest greatest Android tablet will be crippled by limited availability, not to mention crippled content.

Maybe 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop Android tablet, but 2012 was lost in March.

Why are reviews relevant at all? How have good reviews helped Windows Phone? For that matter, Macs consistently get great reviews but growth remains slow, though steady. Even if reviews matter, the Nexus 7 will have three months before Windows 8 tablets and the 7-inch iPad launch. That might be enough time to gain a little traction, except the latest greatest Android tablet will be crippled by limited availability, not to mention crippled content.

Maybe 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop Android tablet, but 2012 was lost in March.

Just pointing out how the Nexus has positive buzz for an Android tablet, for once.

Usually when these things are announced, the immediate response is laughter. Originally I had thought the Kindle Fire would be well recieved, but then the reviews started rolling in and the clunkiness of the actual software quickly killed any chance of it being the product hit Amazon had been hoping for.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the Nexus. The hardware seems great, the OS looks awesome. The price is phenomenal.

However, the last hurdle is the apps. And there's very little Google can do about that. This thing may live or die based on that one aspect alone methinks.

Where are people getting the idea that there will be a 7" ipad for $200? Isn't that the retail price of the 8GB 3.5" screened ipod touch? Apple are going to double the screen size and keep the price the same? I could see it going for $300, with the old ipad 2 for $400 and the ipad 3 for $500.

Where are people getting the idea that there will be a 7" ipad for $200? Isn't that the retail price of the 8GB 3.5" screened ipod touch? Apple are going to double the screen size and keep the price the same? I could see it going for $300, with the old ipad 2 for $400 and the ipad 3 for $500.

Whatever pricing Apple adopts has to make sense in light of the next 10" iPad refresh, I think. So, I see two plausible scenarios:

- Apple prices the 7.85" iPad at $199 or $249, and takes iPad 2 down to $299 with the next 10" refresh.

- Apple prices the 7.85" iPad at $299 and stops selling iPad 2 with the next 10" refresh.

In either case at the next 10" refresh I'd expect to see iPad 3 drop to $399 and iPad 4 take over the $499 spot.

Where are people getting the idea that there will be a 7" ipad for $200? Isn't that the retail price of the 8GB 3.5" screened ipod touch? Apple are going to double the screen size and keep the price the same? I could see it going for $300, with the old ipad 2 for $400 and the ipad 3 for $500.

Who is suggesting a 7-inch iPad will be $200? It will be $300. That will be sufficiently inexpensive to capture a supermajority of those desiring a 7-inch tablet.

Where are people getting the idea that there will be a 7" ipad for $200? Isn't that the retail price of the 8GB 3.5" screened ipod touch? Apple are going to double the screen size and keep the price the same? I could see it going for $300, with the old ipad 2 for $400 and the ipad 3 for $500.

Who is suggesting a 7-inch iPad will be $200? It will be $300. That will be sufficiently inexpensive to capture a supermajority of those desiring a 7-inch tablet.

Where are people getting the idea that there will be a 7" ipad for $200? Isn't that the retail price of the 8GB 3.5" screened ipod touch? Apple are going to double the screen size and keep the price the same? I could see it going for $300, with the old ipad 2 for $400 and the ipad 3 for $500.

Who is suggesting a 7-inch iPad will be $200? It will be $300. That will be sufficiently inexpensive to capture a supermajority of those desiring a 7-inch tablet.

My apologies. I have to ease off the sauce.

Apple doesn't play margin games. Leave Google and Amazon to tear chunks off each other, whilst Apple sits at a higher price point hoovering up all the profit. As per.

The Mac Plus launched in 1986. It's not unreasonable to expect an eight year old computer and application to still be working.

Yup. I ran my G4 450 from 1997 to 2004 -- upgraded to OS 9.2 and never switched to OSX until I replaced the machine. Used it daily and met all the print/web design needs for a small independent record label and a handful of other design clients during that period.

I always loved this because it's a good example of how the RDF works. Windows is horrible because it's bogged down by legacy support while osx which comes with a program designed to back up data to magnetic reels and another designed for teletype terminals somehow doesn't have legacy cruft.

"But a true laptop replacement isn't about raw power; it's about the productivity that power enables, and Honeycomb just isn't up to the task. The operating system hasn't been optimized for that ridiculous processor or that beautiful display, the app selection remains pitiable at best, and it's just not that intuitive to use. Asus may have produced a brilliant piece of engineering at a price that's competitive with the iPad, but Android hasn't yet matched iOS when it comes to unlocking all that potential."

"The Tab 10.1 is now the thinnest tablet on the market and yet doesn't sacrifice battery life or performance for its trim dimensions. Does that mean it's better than the iPad 2? In some respects, yes. Its camera takes better shots and it's lighter to hold, but Honeycomb's trailing app selection continues, and will continue to, hold back even the most miraculous Honeycomb hardware"

It's a shame "The Verge" didn't exist prior to the new iPad. You would have seen it score 9.2+

They gave the new iPad a score of 9.3 for example. Whichever way you slice it, Android tablets were compared against the iPad and fell short each and every time.

So no, I don't agree that these devices were ever held up as iPad killers by anyone that actually knows something about tablets.

The Nexus seems good enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see it hold it's own against the equivalent 7 inch Apple device should it ever ship.

All I'm saying is, this time it would appear it's not a forgone conclusion that Apple will dominate that segment.

But all those negatives mentioned in the reviews are negatives of the Android OS, not the tablets themselves. The Nexus will also be running Android OS so why do you think suddenly Nexus will fare differently? Take the Transformer Prime as an example: It's reviewed very well and it is running ICS.

I'm thinking myself maybe getting a Nexus, but I can't say I see it as something radically different from the other Android tablets we've seen so far. There's been some which have had very nice hardware but it doesn't appear that this has helped much, so far, and Nexus is more of the same (although sold by Google). I think something like Microsof'ts Surface is way more interesting and much more of a wild card so it's going to be interesting to see what happens with that one :-)

But all those negatives mentioned in the reviews are negatives of the Android OS, not the tablets themselves. The Nexus will also be running Android OS so why do you think suddenly Nexus will fare differently?

Because Jelly Bean seems to have a level of polish that is much, much improved over ICS for example.

Remember how we always lamented the perceptible lagginess of the Android UI? That's now officially a thing of the past. It has a voice assistant (Google Now) that would appear to trump Siri fairly soundly (there are comparison videos on the web)

But all those negatives mentioned in the reviews are negatives of the Android OS, not the tablets themselves. The Nexus will also be running Android OS so why do you think suddenly Nexus will fare differently?

Because Jelly Bean seems to have a level of polish that is much, much improved over ICS for example.

Remember how we always lamented the perceptible lagginess of the Android UI? That's now officially a thing of the past. It has a voice assistant (Google Now) that would appear to trump Siri fairly soundly (there are comparison videos on the web)

I want to note that moving around all of these screens is buttery smooth. There's no lag, no stutter. Animations are fluid, and everything feels cohesive and solid. It's like Ice Cream Sandwich is more "there" than previous versions of Android.

Enough time and horsepower has accrued that I'm sure that the famous Android lagginess is less of an annoyance. That said, third-party Android apps still seem to have issues. Topolsky's review of the Nexus 7 talked about poor scrolling behavior in a popular twitter client (I have no idea which one, this Twitter thing has really passed me by.) He also mentioned an odd 'snap-back' behavior that could be something of an overcompensation for quick scrolling. All-in-all, it appears to be far less of an issue than before.

On the flip side, my current-gen iPad seems just slightly less responsive than the old 2. Pushing all those pixels, even with the new GPU, is a challenge. The iOS 6 beta also doesn't help matters any.

The thing about Project Butter is that it conclusively proves that all those who said jankiness wasn't an issue in Android (or that it was "finally" fixed in ICS) were, to coin a phrase, full of shit.

It's no different than anything else. When the iPad came out, people oohed-and-aahed over it's display. Now that the version 3 iPad is out, you get comments like these:

Quote:

For my own part, I find going back to the iPad 2 from the 'new' iPad quite jarring

( source: viewtopic.php?p=23026583#p23026583 ) (not saying anything about the comment is good/bad... just saying that comparisons are typically subjective... as things improve, older seems 'not as good anymore').

Just like we enjoyed Atari 2600 games when they were new, kids today laugh at the graphics.

The thing about Project Butter is that it conclusively proves that all those who said jankiness wasn't an issue in Android (or that it was "finally" fixed in ICS) were, to coin a phrase, full of shit.

I suppose with ICS it probably depended on what you were doing. So it was smooth alot of the time but then perhaps fell short some of the time.

When I myself tested an ICS based handset, it was certainly smoother than earlier Android handsets I'd tried, but coming from Windows Phone it was still slightly perceptible. Not enough to tear your hair out, but it was there, barely. Here's the thing though, that same lag that I noticed was still completely imperceptible to the actual owner of the handset.

So I can believe ICS users who say they don't experience the lag. It may be there but it's so much better than what came before that they don't notice it.

I'm not so sure, Android devices have had plenty of horse power for some time now and still seemed laggy,

Maybe to your eyes. Not to mine. Based on my phone, at least, I don't know what the problem is supposed to be. I'm not irritated as I would almost certainly be if the thing stuttered or (as my wife's Nook sometimes does) froze for a bit.

Whatever is happening is (IME so far of this phone) a non-event.

And, for what it's worth I have had exposure to an iPad. Before I bought the phone.

I suppose with ICS it probably depended on what you were doing. So it was smooth alot of the time but then perhaps fell short some of the time.

If the result really was because Android's software structure "avoided" the GPU, as I have seen suggested here and there, then I'd expect the "lagginess" problem to slowly diminish over time.

Software trying to be universal is likely to use older interfaces and, at least here and there, still lag. Software might "notice" which version they are on and use any new GPU based interfaces that (I presume) are some of the reason for the improvement (presuming this wasn't all perception and confirmation bias to start with; but I did see something on the Nook myself).

Still, I've seen sheer horsepower kill or substantially kill things like this. You seem to suggest this is happening. If the user doesn't see it, is it still a problem?

Topolsky's review of the Nexus 7 talked about poor scrolling behavior in a popular twitter client (I have no idea which one, this Twitter thing has really passed me by.)

The worst application I have ever seen for jerkiness is the Twitter app itself, and guess which OS? Windows Phone 7. When you open a link into the browser and come back from it, it is sometimes so jerky it damn near stops dead. Even my crapiest Android phone is never as bad as that app on WP7.

Topolsky's review of the Nexus 7 talked about poor scrolling behavior in a popular twitter client (I have no idea which one, this Twitter thing has really passed me by.)

The worst application I have ever seen for jerkiness is the Twitter app itself, and guess which OS? Windows Phone 7. When you open a link into the browser and come back from it, it is sometimes so jerky it damn near stops dead. Even my crapiest Android phone is never as bad as that app on WP7.

Weird. I just tried it on my Lumia and there's no lag anywhere.

But you can try Rowi or Carbon instead for alternative twitter apps that perform well.